To evaluate the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (R-vNOTES) hysterectomy when compared with traditional vNOTES (T-vNOTES) hysterectomy. Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Academic tertiary setting. Patients: Total of 114 patients with benign gynecologic indication for hysterectomy. Interventions: T-vNOTES or R-vNOTES hysterectomy performed by a single minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in the study period.Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome of this study was surgical equivalence, measured principally by total operative time between T-vNOTES and R-vNOTES hysterectomy. Secondary operative outcomes that were measured included estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, reported postoperative pain levels, and number of conversions. A total of 79 women underwent T-vNOTES hysterectomy, and 35 women underwent R-vNOTES hysterectomy without differences in operative time (p = .37), estimated blood loss (p = .27), length of hospital stay (p = .06), or reported postoperative pain levels at weeks 1, 2, and 3 after surgery (p = .78, p = .36, p = .38, respectively). A total of 6 patients underwent conversion in the T-vNOTES hysterectomy group compared with 0 in the R-vNOTES hysterectomy group; however, this was not statistically significantly different, and there were no conversions to laparotomy. Conclusion: R-vNOTES hysterectomy is a feasible approach to surgery when compared with T-vNOTES hysterectomy and warrants further consideration as a skill set in a gynecologic surgeon's toolbox. Wristed instruments may allow surgeons who are inexperienced in single-site laparoscopy to adopt vNOTES more quickly as a new technique when performing hysterectomy through a comparable minimally invasive approach.
Background: Minimally invasive surgery is currently a preferred treatment for symptomatic ovarian cyst(s), with single-site techniques, such as transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (TU-LESS) and transvaginal laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (TV-LESS), gaining increasing popularity. Although both methods have delivered positive outcomes, there is currently limited literature directly comparing TU-LESS and TV-LESS.Objectives: This study had two primary objectives: (1) to evaluate the safety and feasibility of TV-LESS and TU-LESS for the treatment of ovarian cysts and (2) to compare the surgical and postoperative outcomes of the two procedures.Method: This was a prospective observational clinical analysis of 81 patients with a diagnosis of benign ovarian cyst with indication for TV-LESS or TU-LESS. Surgeries were performed at a tertiary hospital between February 1, 2018 and January 31, 2020. Patients were divided into TV-LESS (n = 40) and TU-LESS groups (n = 40), with one excluded due to severe pelvic adhesive disease. Demographics, operation outcomes, and follow-up details were compared.Results: All 80 patients underwent uncomplicated procedures. The two groups were demographically matched (except age), with no difference in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hemoglobin loss, and hospitalization costs (P > 0.05). However, TV-LESS patients had significantly faster time to ambulation (P < 0.001), faster time to return of bowel function (P < 0.001), less postoperative pain level (P < 0.001), and shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.001). The cosmetic scores at 1, 4, and 24 weeks after surgery were also higher for the TV-LESS group.
Conclusion:Our preliminary experience suggested that TU-LESS and TV-LESS are both feasible and safe for ovarian cystectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy. However, TV-LESS may provide three main advantages including:(1) fewer postoperative complications (i.e. incisional hernia); (2) less postoperative pain; and (3) improved cosmetic satisfaction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.